In more than five years as the East Sussex coroner, I have never complained about anything you have published in relation to my work but I cannot allow your front page article of Friday, October 10, to pass without comment.

You have kindly offered me the chance to put the record straight and despite the serious nature of the subject I will try to do so as clearly as I can.

The article concerned the tragic death of Penny Beale, who was murdered in November 2001, and the circumstances surrounding the retention of her brain and its return to her mother, also called Penny, as next of kin in April this year.

The article contained the following false statements or implications: that the brain had been wrongly removed and without Miss Beale's knowledge or permission; that she had been given no explanation about what was happening; that she had been deceived into believing the brain was being used for medical research when it was not; that she had had to undergo "months of wrangling" to get it back at all and it had been returned to her in a plastic bag filled with formaldehyde; that this was an inappropriate and insensitive procedure and that she had been treated shabbily.

The true facts are as follows: After the murder, a forensic pathologist specialist approved by the Home Office was instructed by me to conduct a post-mortem examination.

As in every autopsy, the brain was removed for inspection.

There had been head injuries so the pathologist decided the brain needed a full examination to assess the extent of cerebral injury.

This means sending the brain to a London hospital but no work can start for two to three months because the brain has to be "fixed" by immersion in formalin.

After the first autopsy, the solicitors for the person charged with the murder requested me to allow their own pathologist to carry out a second post-mortem.

If such a request is refused, the chances of a conviction can be compromised so of course permission is normally granted and was in this case.

The evidence gained from examination of the deceased's body was of the utmost importance in the subsequent murder trial.

Preservation of exhibits during criminal proceedings is covered by the Code of Practice produced by the Home Office under section 23 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.

The code requires retention of all exhibits, including body parts, for six months after the end of the trial.

All this is standard practice in every case and, despite the obvious distress the procedures will undoubtedly cause to relatives, they are necessary if justice is to be done and people charged with homicide are to be successfully prosecuted.

Nothing that was done following the death of Penny Beale departed in any way from these procedures and throughout it all, my officer, James Cornford, was in touch with the deceased's mother.

Following the arrangements set up by most coroners, including myself, after the Alder Hey organ retention scandal, Miss Beale was given three options - delaying the funeral until the brain could be reunited with the body, receiving it later and arranging a separate burial or cremation ceremony (which she chose consistently to prefer) and permitting the hospital to dispose of the organ itself with due dignity.

This discussion with Miss Beale took place immediately after the first post-mortem.

A similar article which appeared in the Hastings Observer on the same day as your article recorded Miss Beale's recognition that Mr Cornford had treated her with sympathy but you chose to omit that.

From the outset, Miss Beale indicated she was in favour of medical research but she was gently told that after a full autopsy the brain would not be in a fit state for use by researchers.

As time went on, at different stages in the trial and afterwards, Miss Beale phoned Mr Cornford on a number of occasions and all these matters were discussed with her, openly and in understandable terms.

On March 28 this year, the brain was collected from the neuropathologist in London and conveyed to the mortuary at the Conquest Hospital in Hastings.

Mr Cornford phoned Miss Beale to say that her funeral director could now collect it. She said she wanted to do this herself.

It was explained that this might be distressing but she insisted.

I understand the hospital considered the matter from a legal point of view and decided she was entitled to receive it herself and a meeting was arranged for April 15 between Miss Beale, Mr Cornford and the senior anatomical pathology technician at the hospital.

The brain was contained within a purpose-designed, double-wrapped plastic holder.

It obviously contained formaldehyde because it had been stored in that medium.

There was a box provided, again designed for this purpose. It was kept open on the basis that it might be easier for Miss Beale to have first sight of the brain while the professionals were present to answer any questions sympathetically.

I want to make it plain that this letter does not contain any criticism of Miss Beale.

It must be quite impossible for anybody who has not suffered the death of a loved one in these circumstances to begin to understand the emotions and grief she must have suffered and I and my staff are keenly aware of the need to exercise enormous sensitivity when making and communicating decisions in such cases.

However, your article was sensational, one-sided and, above all, untrue.

You should have made an attempt to contact me to check the facts.

I am happy to confirm that your usual standard of reporting of inquests seems to me to be very good so I am surprised this story was printed in the way it was.

Editor's comment: I accept this story was unsatisfactory in balance, tone and accuracy and I apologise to Mr Craze and his officers for any embarrassment caused.

We certainly should have contacted him before publication to check the facts and will do so in future in similar circumstances.

-There was no intention to mislead and the story was published in good faith.